fezziwig comments on How would you take over Rome? - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Yvain 14 March 2012 04:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (200)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: fezziwig 15 March 2012 04:42:06AM 11 points [-]

Upvoted for detail and thoroughness, but I think you're depending too much on the naivete of the natives. Step 3b is especially problematic; even if your guards are too loyal to sell you out (why?), you can't conceal that you're doing something in secret with a pack of metalsmiths. Just the fact that it's a secret will be enough to get the provincial governor's attention. That's probably not the end: he may well be an incompetent ditherer, or venal enough to take bribes. But as soon as you start training your infantry, the clock starts: the emperor sends an envoy ordering you to turn over your new weapons, you refuse, you're ordered to appear before a Roman court, you refuse, you're declared to be in rebellion, and it's on.

I think your one-year gamble is probably the better strategy for becoming emperor - maybe the best one, or close to it. Certainly the fastest. Surviving the next year would be tricky, though.

Comment author: Logos01 15 March 2012 05:32:02AM *  6 points [-]

Step 3b is especially problematic; even if your guards are too loyal to sell you out (why?), you can't conceal that you're doing something in secret with a pack of metalsmiths.

I'm only concerned about the technological prowess, not knowledge of its existence. I want to maintain my technological advantage. The guards can't convey information they themselves lack; and I'd make sure the job was lucrative enough.

But as soon as you start training your infantry, the clock starts: the emperor sends an envoy ordering you to turn over your new weapons, you refuse, you're ordered to appear before a Roman court, you refuse, you're declared to be in rebellion, and it's on.

Well -- plantation owners were allowed to maintain their own household troops (within reason) -- and I'd have fewer than a thousand such. It'd be pretty easy to hide the total number of individuals involved; especially since the efficacy of my troops would be totally inconceivable. Careful bribery of provincial leaders and arguments/justifications involving guarding my own wagons, keeping troops always on the move to make them less apparent.

Also -- I'm expecting to face charges of rebellion; they are an integral part of the plan. It would be best if they didn't come until somewhere between three and four years in. It's important to recognize that the usual response to 'wild' stories of 'incredible' weapons is skepticism. There's very strong odds that the initial inquiries/investigations would simply not recognize the scale/scope of the threat involved. But you are quite right; additional maskirovka should probably be involved to ensure that the total number of troops being trained is vastly under-reported. The usefulness of the weapons should also be down-played. It would be very easy (use clay bullets, undercharge the guns) to make it appear that they are only useful against poorly-armored highway robbers. That would stave off 'official' inquiries quite well.

Surviving the next year would be tricky, though.

The Romans as a culture placed a lot of stock in the notion that victory in combat represented worthiness as a person. You can coast pretty far on such a victory. Capitalizing on it would be tricky -- how does one guarantee the loyalty of a personal elite guard?

Comment author: fezziwig 15 March 2012 06:49:19PM *  2 points [-]

Yeah, ok; you have more scope for camouflage than I appreciated at first. It will eventually become obvious that you're training an army (you'll have to train them to fight in formation, and volley, and things like that), but when the provincial governor shows up wanting to know what you plan to do with it, you might well be able to get away with saying "I'm planning to conquer Rome and install myself as emperor, and if you go along with it I'll find you a nice fat province in the East to be governor of". And if that doesn't work, well, you probably can win a long campaign, it's just really messy.

The Romans as a culture placed a lot of stock in the notion that victory in combat represented worthiness as a person.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean they'll stop fighting you. Consider Cannae: most states would have sued for peace after so brutal an upset. Same deal after Arausio; the Romans were as proud and stiff-necked a people as have ever existed, China and America by no means excepted.

Comment author: Logos01 15 March 2012 08:55:32PM 5 points [-]

(you'll have to train them to fight in formation, and volley, and things like that),

I'm planning on 20-man units, using modern infantry tactics (not much in the way of volleyed fire, nor pretty much anything in the way of formation firing). Also, air guns are quiet. So these aren't really much of an issue.